JohnRich 4 #1 August 18, 2010 News:US opposes Seoul’s bid to sell old rifles The U.S. government opposed South Korea’s bid to sell hundreds of thousands of aging U.S. combat rifles to American gun collectors, a senior government official said Thursday. The ministry announced the plan last September as part of efforts to boost its defense budget, saying the export of the M1 Garand and carbine rifles would start by the end of 2009. The U.S. administration put the brakes on the plan, citing “problems” that could be caused by the importation of the rifles. The problems the U.S. government cited were somewhat ambiguous, said an official at the Ministry of National Defense on condition of anonymity. “The U.S. insisted that imports of the aging rifles could cause problems such as firearm accidents. It was also worried the weapons could be smuggled to terrorists, gangs or other people with bad intentions,” the official told The Korea Times... Source: http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2010/08/205_71329.html Well, well, Barry is finally coming out of the closet and showing his true colors towards guns. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #2 August 18, 2010 QuoteNews:US opposes Seoul’s bid to sell old rifles The U.S. government opposed South Korea’s bid to sell hundreds of thousands of aging U.S. combat rifles to American gun collectors, a senior government official said Thursday. The ministry announced the plan last September as part of efforts to boost its defense budget, saying the export of the M1 Garand and carbine rifles would start by the end of 2009. The U.S. administration put the brakes on the plan, citing “problems” that could be caused by the importation of the rifles. The problems the U.S. government cited were somewhat ambiguous, said an official at the Ministry of National Defense on condition of anonymity. “The U.S. insisted that imports of the aging rifles could cause problems such as firearm accidents. It was also worried the weapons could be smuggled to terrorists, gangs or other people with bad intentions,” the official told The Korea Times... Source: http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2010/08/205_71329.html Well, well, Barry is finally coming out of the closet and showing his true colors towards guns. the only ones that doubted this was the liberals. that is why gun sales are at an all time high. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 622 #3 August 18, 2010 Maybe they can find a neutral country to serve as a middle man? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wayneflorida 0 #4 August 18, 2010 Wouldn't be surprised if some collectors oppose this since the imports would decrease their collection value. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #5 August 18, 2010 QuoteNews:US opposes Seoul’s bid to sell old rifles OMG! Hide the women and children the world is about to end! Actually the answer is in the article itself. There is no "ban" and no evidence Obama is even vaguely aware of the situation let alone took person action on the issue. Pity you missed that JR. Quote Critics say the ministry pushed to sell the firearms in a hasty manner without enough consultation with the U.S. beforehand, as calls were growing to increase defense expenditure. quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
futuredivot 0 #6 August 18, 2010 I've got to semi support you here. The article does say "administration" which would lead me to believe the issue has attention at a high enough level that the Prez has heard it mentioned but I don't think he called someone at home last night and told them to put a stop to the imports. I kind of wish he had a more personal involvement. If he handled this with his usual level of effectiveness I'd have already found a great deal on one of these rifles.You are only as strong as the prey you devour Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #7 August 18, 2010 QuoteOMG! Hide the women and children the world is about to end! Where did anyone claim that? QuoteThere is no "ban" and no evidence Obama is even vaguely aware of the situation let alone took person action on the issue. The request for sale was denied - that's a ban. And even if Barry didn't order it personally, it was certainly done by one of his department appointees who have been carefully selected for their liberal and anti-gun views. QuotePity you missed that JR. It's a pity you can't discuss the issue without playing ridiculous games like you just did. Are you afraid that WWII collectible rifles will be used by gangs and terrorists in America? Fact: Korea would only be allowed to sell these rifles to someone with a federal license to sell firearms. Fact: Those firearm licensees could only sell them to customers who pass a background check. Fact: Millions of these rifles are already in civilian hands, and they don't presently cause a problem, so there's no reason to believe that a few more of them will change that. Fact: These rifles are outdated technology that criminals aren't interested in, rather, they are prized by historical collectors. Fact: The BATF classifies these rifles as a "Relic", which means that they are so old that they don't consider them dangerous enough to warrant any special regulations. Fact: The U.S. Army already sells surplus Garands and Carbines to civilians through the Civilian Marksmanship Program: http://www.thecmp.org/ Fact: The executive branch is in charge of import policy. Clinton used his power in this regard to ban gun imports during his presidency.Another story: http://www.opposingviews.com/i/obama-bans-more-than-100-000-american-made-rifles Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #8 August 18, 2010 The use of the word "administration" is pretty vague. It could mean anything from Obama to a low level lackey at the ATF simply saying "Uh, the paperwork wasn't filled out right."quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #9 August 18, 2010 I've asked this before and never received a reply, but I'll try again. QuoteIf he handled this with his usual level of effectiveness I'd have already found a great deal on one of these rifles. Can you cite some example's of what you perceive as Obama's inefffectiveness? Thanks. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #10 August 18, 2010 QuoteIt's a pity you can't discuss the issue without playing ridiculous games like you just did. The only ridiculous game being "played" here is the one where somebody blows what is probably a minor paperwork issue into an alleged major policy statement of "Obama Blocks Import of Antique Rifles." Omaba has done no such thing and it's dishonest to say he has.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 622 #11 August 18, 2010 Wouldn't the list be shorter to list what he has done? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #12 August 18, 2010 QuoteThe only ridiculous game being "played" here is the one where somebody blows what is probably a minor paperwork issue into an alleged major policy statement of "Obama Blocks Import of Antique Rifles." Omaba has done no such thing and it's dishonest to say he has. See? There's those word games again. First of all, you don't know if it's just a minor paperwork issue. Second, I didn't claim it was a major policy statement. But the fact is, the import sale has been denied, at least for now. So that headline is 100% true. You're making a whole lot of assumptions, without any knowledge that you're correct. That's playing word games. And I think you could at least spell "Obama" correctly - are you so worked-up over this that you're typing too fast? Obama, as the President, is responsible for every action that occurs by the departments overseen by his appointees. At least that's the way you liberals seemed to think during the Bush years, but maybe that principle doesn't apply any more now that your chosen-one is in charge. When something happens in government, Obama is ultimately responsible for it. Therefore it's correct to say that Obama blocked this import. "Obama" is synonymous with "Obama Administration". And there's something that you ignored in that story, and that is the South Korean official's statement that the paperwork was denied because of concerns over crime and accidents - which goes against your presumption that it's just a paperwork snafu. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #13 August 18, 2010 Hey JR -- Remember when the NRA and the rest of the gun lobbyists had all you guys shaking in your boots that Obama was going to confiscate all your guns, so you and the other suckers would go to the gun shops and buy every gun and bullet you could find? Remember being played like a chump. How'd that turn out? Where's the great Obama gun grab? Fear + hype = gun sales. Whoohoo! Let's play 'em for the suckers they are!quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #14 August 18, 2010 Quote And I think you could at least spell "Obama" correctly - DUUUUUDECan you spell Irony?? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
futuredivot 0 #15 August 18, 2010 It's not looking like we'll make the moon by 2020, earmarks went up, not down and did you have a chance to read the HC bill in it's final version before the vote? Starters Now, YOU tell me what HE has accomplished Not going to cite sources-like the man said. you can do your own research.You are only as strong as the prey you devour Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,257 #16 August 18, 2010 QuoteAnd I think you could at least spell "Obama" correctly You can talk, remember how long it took you to learn how to spell it? Quote Second, I didn't claim it was a major policy statement... Obama, as the President, is responsible for every action that occurs by the departments overseen by his appointees. At least that's the way you liberals seemed to think during the Bush years, but maybe that principle doesn't apply any more now that you're chosen-one is in charge. When something happens in government, Obama is ultimately responsible for it. Whateveeerrrr. You can't make personal statements like "Barry is finally showing his true colors" while also claiming that you were only saying Obama is responsible in the sense that he is responsible for every decision by every member of staff in the Executive branch. If you don't want to be held to the things you say, don't say them - this constant whinging and twisting everytime someone calls you on the things you say and imply is seriously unbecoming.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
christelsabine 1 #17 August 18, 2010 Quote .... See? There's those word games again. First of all, you don't know if it's just a minor paperwork issue. Second, I didn't claim it was a major policy statement. But the fact is, the import sale has been denied, at least for now. So that headline is 100% true. You're making a whole lot of assumptions, without any knowledge that you're correct. That's playing word games. And I think you could at least spell "Obama" correctly - are you so worked-up over this that you're typing too fast? Obama, as the President, is responsible for every action that occurs by the departments overseen by his appointees. At least that's the way you liberals seemed to think during the Bush years, but maybe that principle doesn't apply any more now that you're chosen-one is in charge. When something happens in government, Obama is ultimately responsible for it. Therefore it's correct to say that Obama blocked this import. "Obama" is synonymous with "Obama Administration". Quote...you're... "...are you so worked-up over this that you're typing too fast? " Fell over your own feet, mate? dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #18 August 18, 2010 QuoteQuote And I think you could at least spell "Obama" correctly - Can you spell Irony?? When I misspell it, it's intentional. When quade misspelled it above, it's because he just fumbled it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #19 August 18, 2010 QuoteYou can't make personal statements like "Barry is finally showing his true colors" while also claiming that you were only saying Obama is responsible in the sense that he is responsible for every decision by every member of staff in the Executive branch. When you examine his record of service in government, you will realize that it IS his true colors. And those colors are spread far and wide through the selection of his like-minded appointees. QuoteIf you don't want to be held to the things you say... Where did I claim I don't stand behind my words? Looks to me like just another guy making words up, that I have never said. If that's all you've got to criticize me with, then you've already lost the argument. Quotethis constant whinging What is "whinging"? Do you mean "whining"? Defending myself against people like you who claim I've said things that I've never said, is not whining. It's a justified counter-argument. So once again, your second strawman argument burns to ashes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #20 August 18, 2010 So, your metrics for lack of effectiveness are: 1. We might not get something done in ten years. 2. Earmarks went up. 3. You don't like the HC bill. In response: 1. Let's wait ten years for that one. 2. Okay, one out of three aint bad. 3. The HC bill ight be an example of bad policy, but ramming it through Congress is certainly proof of effectiveness, not the opposite. Anti-Obama people seem to want to have two contradictory narratives running at the same time: a) he's ineffective and can't get sanything done, and b) he's ramming too many things through. You can't have it both ways. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #21 August 18, 2010 QuoteQuote...you're... "...are you so worked-up over this that you're typing too fast? " Fell over your own feet, mate? You should study-up on your English a bit, before trying to criticize mine. You're wrong. "You're": http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/you%27re Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #22 August 18, 2010 QuoteWhat is "whinging"? Do you mean "whining"? Jakee's from the UK, John. "Whinge" is to "whine" as "petrol" is to "gasoline". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
regulator 0 #23 August 18, 2010 I personally own an M1 Carbine my father had purchased right after world war II back in the Early 50's. They had a surplus of these rifles and were selling them via mail order for around 25 dollars. I have no intention of selling mine (ever) so I don't really care what it's worth. But just my personal opinion...perhaps the president should worry about more pressing issues...like fixing the economy. By the way the .30 M1 I have still shoots like a charm. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #24 August 18, 2010 Quoteperhaps the president should worry about more pressing issues...like fixing the economy I'm pretty sure the President doesn't give two mouse shits about M1's from Korea. It was the OP that wanted to imply he did. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #25 August 18, 2010 I remember about 25 years ago seeing a bunch of mil-surp M-1 carbines for sale in a Woolworths. (Not in the South, either). Fully functional, too (so it was claimed). Just out there on an unattended rack; not even chained up or behind the counter. Customers were just picking them up and dry-firing them. Times have changed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites